W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: OWL Lite vs OWL DL-Lite

From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:52:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200302132252.RAA27617@clue.msid.cme.nist.gov>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Deb McGuinness wrote regarding OWL F Lite and OWL DL Lite

>I think ian's examples are valid real world examples of usefulness 
>of OWL Lite DL.
>Essentially they are characterized by an application being able to 
>take advantage of a reasoner's ability to classify descriptions 
>correctly.  this requires iff semantics.
>Similarly I think there are users who come more from a modeling 
>orientation who would like a simple transition path up from rdfs 
>and would benefit from an OWL lite that does not require them to 
>understand the limitations imposed by DL.

Speaking as someone who comes from the world of modeling (which I
take to mean data modeling and object modeling), I don't see this 
at all.  People who are currently modeling using NIAM/ORM, EXPRESS, 
or UML who are considering using Semantic Web languages will go 
directly to OWL DL Lite or OWL DL (or perhaps to DAML).  At OMG,
we are specifically asking for a mapping to OWL DL in our RFP for 
Ontology Definition (an OMG version of a UML Presentation syntax 
for OWL).  This is because the motivation for moving models to 
ontology languages is to attain a practical capability for reasoning 
about those models.  I am not denying that there is a constituency 
for a migration path from RDFS to OWL F Lite, just that I haven't 
encountered it in OMG, ISO STEP, or other communities doing 
manufacturing, business, or systems modeling.  

Speaking for Two Dimensions in Lite

One public relations issue that I have encountered regarding OWL is
the perception that it is not worth looking into the language because 
it contains a union of the problems, limitations, and disliked features
of RDF(S) and DLs (many of which are actually mis-perceptions, outdated 
understandings, and/or prejudice).  This suggests to me a good reason 
for adopting a two dimensional structure for the OWL sublanguages.  It 
would show clearly that there is a partial decoupling in the language 
between RDF and Description Logics that allows users to pick the 
sublanguage with the features they need, rather than being limited to 
one design compromise in merging the two.


Evan K. Wallace
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 17:52:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC